Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the NorthTower of the WorldTradeCenterat 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.

A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraqreveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraqto escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.

WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.________________________________________________________________

The Bush and Blair governments have repeatedly LIED to us about 9/11 - and their justifications for their "Wars Of Terror."

The "19 hijackers" list turns out to be phoney (by at least 7 "hijackers" found alive and well after 9/11) The 3 WTC skyscrapers were not destroyed by crashing airliners, but by CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS.

9/11 quite likely was a FALSE FLAG operation. Treason from INSIDE America, not a "terrorist" attack from OUTSIDE.

Then they deceived us into attacking and invading Iraqwith lies about imminently threatening (but non-existant) Weapons of Mass Destruction - and phoney Iraqi ties to Bin Laden.

The London Bombs may also be a False Flag "terrorist" attack to panic us into permitting them to accelerate their Wars Of Terror in Iraq - and soon upon innocent Muslims in Iran and Syria!

Odds are we probably won't be hearing for a while the Bush mantra that the reason we're fighting them over in Iraq is so we don't have to fight them here at home. For the last few months, this ludicrous shibboleth has been the president's go-to line -- his latest rationale for slogging on in Iraq.

Posted July 4, 2005Now were expected to believe Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is in Iran. Quoting asenior insurgency commander in Iraq , the Sunday Times said Zarqawi hadshrapnel lodged in his chest and may have been moved to Iran. It said hissupporters might try to move the Jordanian-born militant to anothercountry for an operation, reports Reuters.

Is it possible this senior insurgency commander is an idiot or possibly arank amateur? If indeed al-Zarqawi is the leader of the resistance, itdoes not make sense for his top lieutenants to be so thoughtlesslyloquacious with the media and admit the wounding of al-Zarqawi and revealwhere he is. On the other hand, if al-Zarqawi is not connected to theresistance but is instead a U.S. covert intelligence operation designed todiscredit the resistance and convince us they are little more thancriminals and sadists (to say nothing of idiots), the United States hasdone an admirable job that is, an admirable job served up to those of uswho do not pay attention, who have abandoned common sense, and believeeverything the corporate media feeds us. As Bush and Crew demonstratedwhen they fed us a passel of implausible lies in the lead up to theinvasion of Iraq, the passive and half-witted American news consumer willbelieve just about anything, so long as some authoritarian character tellshim it is true. It matters not that the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fairy tale iscompletely over the top, even surrealistic.

_________________________________________________________

Prewar Findings Worried AnalystsBy Walter PincusWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, May 22, 2005On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered hisState of the Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq,the National Security Council staff put out a call for newintelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessednuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.The person receiving the request, Robert Walpole, then the nationalintelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, would latertell investigators that "the NSC believed the nuclear case wasweak," according to a 500-page report released last year by theSenate Select Committee on Intelligence.

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwaitinto Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United Stateswas just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

The most important tools being used by the Bush administration to maintainvarying degrees of economic and political control in Iraqare the 100Orders enacted by L. Paul Bremer, III, head of the now defunct CoalitionProvisional Authority (CPA) before his departure.